• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Department security officials weren't notified of 'imminent' threats to US embassies

Plasmaball said:
4 embassies..not one that was already attacked..context...use it..
Click to expand...

There was one embassy that we had public knowledge of the threat. That does not mean that other embassies were not being threatened. Kata'ib Hezbollah and the PMF were getting mighty uppity. Soleimani meeting directly with al-Muhandis during such an escalation SHOULD have absolutely been considered an imminent threat of additional hostility.
 
AProudLefty said:
What part of not warning people at the embassies that they're in imminent danger do you not understand?
Click to expand...


He still doesn't understand that there was no "imminent danger".

Trump nearly took us to war just to distract from his recent impeachment...
 
Lutherf said:
Someone may have missed the fact that the US embassy in Baghdad had been attacked by protestors who entered and then set fire to the reception annex. 4 days prior to that attack the same group launched a rocket attack against US assets in the region, killing one American. The threat against our embassy was quite real and quite imminent.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is why Iran. Attacked four embassies that they were planning on attacking as retaliation, oh wait...
 
Another thing I have been wondering about, when did trump start trust American intelligence???

Or did Putin come to him in one of his wet dreams and tell him???
 
GDViking said:
Yeah that is why Iran. Attacked four embassies that they were planning on attacking as retaliation, oh wait...
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how many of our embassies should we allow to be attacked before we retaliate? How many Americans should need to die before we take action against the guy that has a decades long track record of killing Americans? He had hundreds of American deaths on his hands before we took him out. Should we have waited until that became thousands or tens of thousands?

Wait....

My bad. Those were all dumb questions. I know that it isn't the American deaths that made a difference here. It was Trump and the fact that he took Soleimani out instead of allowing a Democrat to do it.
 
Lutherf said:
There was one embassy that we had public knowledge of the threat. That does not mean that other embassies were not being threatened. Kata'ib Hezbollah and the PMF were getting mighty uppity. Soleimani meeting directly with al-Muhandis during such an escalation SHOULD have absolutely been considered an imminent threat of additional hostility.
Click to expand...

IIRC there are levels of threats?
From low to imminent.
How did Trump announce the Intel/reasoning to the world??
 
Top Cat said:
State Department security officials weren't notified of 'imminent' threats to US embassies - CNNPolitics

Someone is lying...
Click to expand...
Wonder no more, who wrote the book of lies?
Donald Trump orders killing of Iranian general Soleimani in US Baghdad airport strike - CNN

Baghdad, Iraq (CNN)US President Donald Trump has said that he ordered a precision strike to "terminate" a top Iranian commander who was plotting "imminent and sinister attacks" on Americans, adding that the decision was one of deterrence rather than aggression.
"We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war," Trump said in a statement from his Mar-a-Lago resort on Friday, a day after a US drone strike on a Baghdad airport killed Qasem Soleimani.
Later, while at a Miami church for an Evangelicals for Trump event, the President said: "He was planning a very major attack and we got him."
Click to expand...
 
Rexedgar said:
From day two, “ This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said.
Click to expand...

No I'm not being paid by the russians, states flynn.

Alternative facts states kellyanne.

The truth is not the truth says rudy.

Imminent threat says pompeo, we don't know where or when but it's imminent.

Yeah, somebody is lying.
 
apdst said:
The president doesn't answer to the state department, so what if they weren't notified.
Click to expand...

Heil trump!

Trump is not our king and like you folks on the right like to say, there's precedent to follow.
 
joko104 said:
A mob storms our embassy and every Democrat on this forum is A-OK with that, just like they were ok with Benghazi and ok with Iran seizing our embassy when Carter was president. There is NO attack against the USA and Americans the new anti-American fascist Democratic Party doesn't approve of.
Click to expand...

I don't remember what country but when one of our embassies was bombed, reagan pulled us out of the country in response.

Do you folks ever get tired of either flat out lying or twisting the facts to fit your story?
 
roughdraft274 said:
You are saying that it's perfectly fine by you that the president doesn't notify an embassy that they have information that an attack is imminent?

Do you understand what you're saying here??
Click to expand...

So does this mean the MAGA folks FORGOT ABOUT BENGHAZI?
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, how many of our embassies should we allow to be attacked before we retaliate? How many Americans should need to die before we take action against the guy that has a decades long track record of killing Americans? He had hundreds of American deaths on his hands before we took him out. Should we have waited until that became thousands or tens of thousands?

Wait....

My bad. Those were all dumb questions. I know that it isn't the American deaths that made a difference here. It was Trump and the fact that he took Soleimani out instead of allowing a Democrat to do it.
Click to expand...

Transparency, Luther. That's what we're asking for.
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, how many of our embassies should we allow to be attacked before we retaliate? How many Americans should need to die before we take action against the guy that has a decades long track record of killing Americans? He had hundreds of American deaths on his hands before we took him out. Should we have waited until that became thousands or tens of thousands?
Click to expand...

Good question. Also, why didn't we bomb the Soviet Union for giving weapons to the North Vietnamese?
 
apdst said:
The threat has been neutralized, what difference does it make?

There was a threat and Trump reacted to the threat. Better than some folks can say. Ain't that right?
Click to expand...

BS! If there had actual "imminent attack" about to take place taking out the operation's planner would do nothing to stop it. It won't prevent any future attacks either. It's becoming increasingly crystal clear that there never was evidence of "imminent attack". That's probably why the initial Pentagon press release about Soulimani made no mention of an imminent attack because the lawyers figured there might be a problem there.
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, how many of our embassies should we allow to be attacked before we retaliate? How many Americans should need to die before we take action against the guy that has a decades long track record of killing Americans? He had hundreds of American deaths on his hands before we took him out. Should we have waited until that became thousands or tens of thousands?
Click to expand...

Jredbaron96 said:
Good question. Also, why didn't we bomb the Soviet Union for giving weapons to the North Vietnamese?
Click to expand...

:lol:







Lutherf said:
Wait....

My bad. Those were all dumb questions. I know that it isn't the American deaths that made a difference here. It was Trump and the fact that he took Soleimani out instead of allowing a Democrat to do it.
Click to expand...

You'd be indignant if Trump was impeached for giving all of our nukes to NK. Everything must be defended, no matter what. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom